Being Present at Calvary VS. Receiving Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spiller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spiller

Guest
The ** primary** reason we attend Mass is to be present at Calvary where God the Son is offered to His Father for propitiation of out sins – past, present and future. The Miracle of Miracles.

It is not to receive Holy Communion as glorious as that in itself most certainly is.

So why do so many act like the Mass is some sort of bother that gets in the way of receiving Holy Communion? It’s almost as if they would prefer a drive-up…
 
Spiller said:
So why do so many act like the Mass is some sort of bother that gets in the way of receiving Holy Communion?
Click to expand...
Probably because they have not been properly catechized, or because they have been overly influenced by today’s culture of instant gratification.
 
It seems to me that it’s separating the inseparable when we say that the presence of the Mystery of Calvary and the reception of the body and blood of our Lord are separate things…much less that one, without the other, is spiritually comprehensible. The Mass is, as we all know, transcendant Sacrifice and the action of Jesus…so is His gift to us of that same body and blood which is sacrificed. Reception of that Sacred flesh and blood is UNION with Him (which is what we do - unite ourselves with Him - in His Holy Sacrifice. To RECEIVE our Lord’s body and blood is to intimately SHARE in His sacrifice and death as He intends us to share in it. The Sacrifice and the ‘receiving’ of Him are not two separate things, but part of one and the same Sacrifice. To separate them is an intellectual argument and difference and is, in my opinion, to miss the point and to significantly diminish our understanding of our presence at this Sacrifice and to also diminish our understanding of the benefit to be gained from
being part of this great Mystery of Calvary.

God love you and all forum members!
 
addendum to my response: I did not intend, by my response, to indicate or to imply that if one did not receive Communion during attendance at Mass, they would not be fully participating in the Mystery of our Salvation. I realize that sometimes, myself included, we are not able to take advantage of the Sacrament of the Eucharist at Mass, for a variety of reasons. I want to go on record as stating that I do NOT think our participation in the Mass and the Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary is any less complete.

I was addressing the issue, in my response, as the ‘ideal’…which is that we DO participate in / receive the Eucharist during Mass. I don’t think anyone would disagree that this is the ideal and what most of us would wish to do.

My response was to set out my belief that when we ARE able to participate in the Mass by receiving Communion, it IS the ideal intended by God and by the Church…and that the two, in that case, are inseparable as part of the same unity, the same Sacrifice, the same intention of our Lord.

thank you
don’t forget your angel today!!
 
Spiller said:
The ** primary** reason we attend Mass is to be present at Calvary where God the Son is offered to His Father for propitiation of out sins – past, present and future. The Miracle of Miracles.

It is not to receive Holy Communion as glorious as that in itself most certainly is.

So why do so many act like the Mass is some sort of bother that gets in the way of receiving Holy Communion? It’s almost as if they would prefer a drive-up…
Click to expand...
I’d say it’s because they don’t know the first thing you said. They think Mass is a vehicle for receiving Holy Communion.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
How can you separate the two? How can you rate one as 1st and one as 2nd?
Click to expand...
The primary end of Mass is the glorification of God the Father by the offering of the perfect sacrifice of God the Son, not the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful. A priest can (and should) pray the Mass even if no one (apart from himself) is capable of receiving Holy Communion.
 
japhy said:
The primary end of Mass is the glorification of God the Father by the offering of the perfect sacrifice of God the Son, not the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful. A priest can (and should) pray the Mass even if no one (apart from himself) is capable of receiving Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Is there something more, hmmm, official (like from the Vatican and not some other group’s blog) that separates and ranks this?
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Is there something more, hmmm, official (like from the Vatican and not some other group’s blog) that separates and ranks this?
Click to expand...
Trent Session XXII is good enough for me.

From Chapter I we see that the primary purpose of the ordained priesthood is to re-present and offer the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father.

From Chapter II we see that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus, which is pleasing and acceptable to God the Father. (The completion of the sacrifice requires the consumption of it, as per the former covenant, which is why the priest must always receive – and under both forms – at Mass.)

From Chapter VI we see that the Church desires that all those present at Mass (who are worthy to communicate) do receive Holy Communion, but that She also approves and commends Masses wherein only the priest communicates. The benefit of the Mass is not only found in sacramental communion, but also in spiritual communion, as well as in the very fact of Mass being offered for the faithful.

Canons I and III and VIII condemn false opinions in these matters:

Canon I: If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

Canon III: If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

Canon VIII: If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

Strong language, to be sure, but sometimes you need such language in order to make the line between Truth and falsehood clear.
 
japhy said:
Trent Session XXII is good enough for me.

From Chapter I we see that the primary purpose of the ordained priesthood is to re-present and offer the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father.

From Chapter II we see that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus, which is pleasing and acceptable to God the Father. (The completion of the sacrifice requires the consumption of it, as per the former covenant, which is why the priest must always receive – and under both forms – at Mass.)

From Chapter VI we see that the Church desires that all those present at Mass (who are worthy to communicate) do receive Holy Communion, but that She also approves and commends Masses wherein only the priest communicates. The benefit of the Mass is not only found in sacramental communion, but also in spiritual communion, as well as in the very fact of Mass being offered for the faithful.

Canons I and III and VIII condemn false opinions in these matters:

Canon I: If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

Canon III: If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

Canon VIII: If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

Strong language, to be sure, but sometimes you need such language in order to make the line between Truth and falsehood clear.
Click to expand...
NONE of this ranks one aspect as more important than the other.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
NONE of this ranks one aspect as more important than the other.
Click to expand...
If the primary end of Mass is the reception of Holy Communion of the faithful, I don’t see how the Church could approve and allow such Masses when such reception did not take place. The Mass is the offering of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus (along with the most perfect sacrifice we can offer) to God the Father in divine worship; if it does not meet that end, it isn’t Mass. Thus, if the Mass is the most perfect form of prayer, and Mass must contain the offering of the perfect sacrifice of God the Son to God the Father, and need not contain the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful, I think it is safe to say that the proper worship of God is more important than our receiving sacramental communion.

This is not to say that the sanctification of the faithful is not a purpose of the Mass, or it’s not important, but simply that glorifying God is the most important thing.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
How can you separate the two? How can you rate one as 1st and one as 2nd?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10918&highlight=calvary
Click to expand...
I DON’T separate the two, but many around me seem to and the focus is always on receiving communion.

For example, if they had to choose from receiving communion from someone that stopped by their house OR attending Mass without receiving communion, they would most certainly choose staying home – this of course is assuming they are able to attend the Mass.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
NONE of this ranks one aspect as more important than the other.
Click to expand...
Settle down with your “rankings” and all. That’s offensive to say the least.

THE primary reason we attend Mass is to be present at Calvary. There is simply no way around that. If you didn’t realize that then there might be shortcomings in your own catechesis.

My concern is that many around me seem to think like the Mass itself is just some sorta “service” and the real reason we attend is to receive communion. That is NOT the case.
 
We are required to attend Mass over 50 times/year. We are required to receive Holy Communion once per year.
 
Spiller said:
Settle down with your “rankings” and all. That’s offensive to say the least.

THE primary reason we attend Mass is to be present at Calvary. There is simply no way around that. If you didn’t realize that then there might be shortcomings in your own catechesis.

My concern is that many around me seem to think like the Mass itself is just some sorta “service” and the real reason we attend is to receive communion. That is NOT the case.
Click to expand...
But they are not so separate - one is the other.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
But they are not so separate - one is the other.
Click to expand...
One is not necessarily the other for people who cannot receive Holy Communion (e.g. those who are too young, those who cannot physically receive, those who are not permitted to receive because of grave sin, and those who are not permitted to receive because they are not in communion with the Church).
 
Eilish_Maura said:
NONE of this ranks one aspect as more important than the other.
Click to expand...
Generally, if something is “optional” you can reach the conclusion that it is non-essential. Reception of Communion by the faithful is optional at Mass while the re-presentation of the Sacrifice at Calvary is absolute.

From a formal logic view, reception of Holy Communion is subordinate to the Sacraficial re-presentation.

The OP never used the word “important” he/she said “primary”.
 
japhy said:
One is not necessarily the other for people who cannot receive Holy Communion (e.g. those who are too young, those who cannot physically receive, those who are not permitted to receive because of grave sin, and those who are not permitted to receive because they are not in communion with the Church).
Click to expand...
All this trying to prove what is ‘primary’ and what is not is minimizing the Eucharist - and that is just wrong.

The Eucharist IS the sacrifice of Calvary and receiving it as instructed by Jesus is NOT secondary. Even if someone cannot/should not receive there is Spiritual Communion but there is no “spiritual Mass” equivalent. We can receive the Eucharist outside of Mass but there is NO Mass without the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top